In terms of WW2 you've got it backwards. The Crusaders were trying to eject the invaders. Unfortunately the invaders ultimately won.
Looked at your link, saw your search terms: "crusades power grab land expansion"
If that's what your looking for you'll be able to find it. "Industrialization and National Prosperity (lessons for the Developing Countries)" ?? Really? For "history" of the crusades? I wouldn't be surprised to find the phrase "little Eichmanns" in there.
Atheist and "anti-theist" aren't mutually exclusive categories. One of them is pretty much a subset of the other. I haven't noticed that most atheists here are indifferent towards religion. It isn't difficult to find contempt, hatred, and even eliminationist sentiments being expressed. What would happen if the official ideology of the state aligned with their views, and they had the power to act in a manner effectively above the law as the NKVD (KGB) could? Religous oppression sanctioned by the state, and often harsh, has been a feature of every Communist country to the best of my knowledge. (It isn't just Stalin and Mao, or a bunch of "psychopaths".)
Hmm.... Looks to me like your over-active fantasy life is leaching out into your everyday life.
You aren't stupid, but you simply get some things wrong, and I may make some replies to other posts mainly for the benefit of others. I doubt there is much evidence that would persuade you that you've got something wrong to the point you would change your mind.
I defy you. Find us a mob of atheist which lynched somebody. Good luck on that. There is plenty current example of mob from *all* major religions lynching people. Heck ever remember the balkan genocide of muslim by christian ?
In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."
That wasn't just power grabs, they genuinely were combating religious belief in accordance with their beliefs and ideology. They were willing to shed blood to stamp out religion.
It turns out that atheists are ordinary people, subject to the same flaws as anyone else.
Oppression of religious believers occurred in every communist country to the best of my knowledge. You can't explain it away by saying it was just Lenin, or Stalin. It happened under the leaders that followed them, and in other countries. It is a matter of ideology.
To the best of my knowledge religious persecution has occured in every communist country, countries that are atheist. It isn't a question of psychopaths, but of ideology.
In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."
You can't explain it away by saying it was just Stalin because it happened under the leaders that followed him, and in other countries.
In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."
Atheist are prone to the same faults as anyone else. There are those among them that hate religion, and if given the opportunity would act on that hatred.
The Crusades were a long delayed defensive reaction by Christian nations to the invasion and conquest by invading Muslim armies. Their intent was to restore the Holy Lands to Christian control.
The first of the Crusades began in 1095, when armies of Christians from Western Europe responded to Pope Urban II’s plea to go to war against Muslim forces in the Holy Land. After the First Crusade achieved its goal with the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, the invading Christians set up several Latin Christian states, even as Muslims in the region vowed to wage holy war (jihad) to regain control over the region.
Up next, was the 1944 D-Day invasion about land expansions abroad and power grabs at home?
Why would any sane terrorist use any sort of service run by someone else? That just makes them vulnerable. Any sort of PC, install Linux and set up their own private XMPP server, instant fully-encrypted communications without leaving any logs or other traces on anyone else's systems where the authorities could get access to them....
Will you be happy if they follow your advice and become untraceable?
No, he is attempting to provide political impetus to be able to make laws banning the use of end to end encrypted chat sessions, so that he can spy on everyone.
That is an interesting theory. Do you have any idea why they would want to do that?
Either this information is false, or the Belgian minister is an idiot. If we can track them on a single platform, it would be dumb to let them know, because they will move somewhere else. It would also be dumb to tell them that it is hard for authorities to monitor if that was actually true.
Wow, a +5. I'm impressed. I've been mod-bombed for years for pointing out the exact same thing. I guess things are different when the shoe is on the other foot.
I like how the Belgian minister is "an idiot" for releasing that information, but good 'ol Edward Snowden is a sainted genius for doing the EXACT SAME THING, only FAR, FAR more and worse.
Either way the horse is long gone from the barn, and the terrorists will be benefiting from the leaks (Belgium: 1, Snowden: 1.7M) for years to come, not to mention China, Russia, and (soon to be nuclear armed with missiles to match) Iran.
Unfortunately there are probably more attacks to come that won't be stopped, and we know the reasons for some of that, don't we?
Praying for Paris, the people of Paris, does nothing to undermine the secular state and it is confused thinking to believe so. The Parisian that made that reply was equally confused - prayer doesn't introduce more religion in places where it isn't. But there is an interesting question to ask that Parisian - assume God exists... does the Parisian turn away God's mercy? What good would come of that?
Was there something different about the terrorists? AKs maybe?
BTW - Not everyone in the US "packs heat." Generally only a minor percentage of people that go to the trouble taking classes, spending a little range time, and having a background investigation to meet the requirements for licensing. Licensed concealed carry holders have a pretty good track record overall, and have stopped many crimes, including what were apparently going to be mass shootings. But I've probably told you things you already know, and more that you want to hear.
Errr, no. And as someone who has studied Pol Pot a bit (due to family connections with some of his victims) it's clear that his atheism was not a significant motivating force in his rampage. And it's clear that neither Stalin nor Mao did anything due to their lack of belief,...
The regimes of all three specifically targeted religious believers and institutions for heavy repression, including confiscation of property and death.
while o the other hand Hitler embraced the Catholic church and they embraced him back. Does "Gott Mitt Un" ring a bell?
The use of "Gott Mitt Un" predated Hitler's regime in German armies by hundreds of years. Hitler didn't "embrace" the Catholic church in any meaningful way, nor did the Catholic church embrace him back. The Nazis were bitter opponents of genuine Christian belief even while they worked to subvert the church for their own purposes. The christian churches were a source of considerable social resistance to the regime.
It's hard to murder millions of people just because you don't believe in something.
Atheists believe there is no god, some are extremists, and many of them hold religious belief in contempt. In the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot that often meant persecution and death.
For example, there are lots of people who don't believe in leprechauns, why aren't they out there committing atrocities? Why don't we label the "aleprechanists" and worry day and night about what they might do? Because it would be silly, that's why.
It would be silly because there belief in leprechauns does not constitute a mobilizing force in society and is at most a rare and quaint folk belief.
Your average atheist isn't going to be motivated to kill people in the name of his/her magical sky-daddy or the promise of an afterlife. Most of us atheists realize that we only get one life to live, and so we try to make the most of it here and now.
Individually that may be largely true. But in large numbers with support from the regime all bets are off.
Show me an example or two of atheists who've committed atrocities in the name of atheism (if you can), and I'll show you a hundred that have done it in the name of religion. Seriously, show me some examples of people who have said "I'm killing people specifically because I don't believe in god!". Statistically there are probably some, but I can't think of any offhand.
... the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."[25]
The officially atheist communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century. Religious persecution was only a portion of that, but it was there.
There are many fine people that are atheists, but atheism isn't a mark of good character, intelligence, or a guarantee of good conduct.
Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. Suck on it.
The difference is that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao didn't do the things they did because they were atheists, whereas religious fanatics do horrific things precisely because they're religious fanatics. Sorry to burst your simple little thought-bubble.
You don't have that right. Harsh religious persecution was a common feature to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. That religious persecution happened as a result of their being atheists. There is no shortage of both extremism and contempt for people holding religious belief among atheists. In those regimes (and many others like them) it resulted in terrible oppression and murder.... by atheists.
I would not really draw attention to the Soviet-Afghan war when trying to argue for how good the US is for world peace and the stability of the region,
You weren't arguing that the US was good, you were arguing that it was bad, and you're doing it again while ignoring the primary mover that was the Soviet Union. Repeating an error doesn't make it smaller.
considering what the US did during that time. I know, hindsight is always 20/20, but, really, nobody thought that it just MIGHT backfire?
It did help bring down the Soviet Union, and I doubt the Soviets had that in mind when they invaded. Bin Laden and al Qaeda weren't a reaction to the US, and weren't backed by the US. They are splatter from the Soviet invasion and the existing strain of Islamic radicalism that had been growing for some time.
Atheism is certainly a religious belief, and a great many of them do believe in magic otherwise they wouldn't keep trying to build communist "workers paradises" on earth (which is only one manifestation).
OK, reality check: France is pounding ISIS in Syria right now. Yes, they (we) also pounded Lybia. Terrorists consider France an ally of the USA (which it is).
These guys are simply using terrorism everywhere, because that's the only thing they know how to do.
Sorry, but that is bullshit. France has only been bombing Syria for six weeks and these attacks were almost certainly being planned long before that. Al Qaida had plots for attacks like this broken up in Europe five years ago:
It takes months or years to plot and prepare for attacks like this. It takes two seconds to claim that it is because of "Syria."
The members of ISIS certainly know more than terrorism. They have put at risk the government of both Iraq and Syria, presenting a serious challenge to their armies in the field. They are using terrorism in France because that is what they can do . ..for now.
The Islamist extremists want France to convert to Islam, just like they want every other country to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Then which military are you recommending the Americans on this American site go join?
Plenty of good options.
US
France
Both accept foreigners.
In terms of WW2 you've got it backwards. The Crusaders were trying to eject the invaders. Unfortunately the invaders ultimately won.
Looked at your link, saw your search terms: "crusades power grab land expansion"
If that's what your looking for you'll be able to find it. "Industrialization and National Prosperity (lessons for the Developing Countries)" ?? Really? For "history" of the crusades? I wouldn't be surprised to find the phrase "little Eichmanns" in there.
Conehead hair?
It's not "impossible" and that is how it was done for decades. The question may not be fully settled yet.
Amish challenge photo i.d. requirement for gun purchases
Atheist and "anti-theist" aren't mutually exclusive categories. One of them is pretty much a subset of the other. I haven't noticed that most atheists here are indifferent towards religion. It isn't difficult to find contempt, hatred, and even eliminationist sentiments being expressed. What would happen if the official ideology of the state aligned with their views, and they had the power to act in a manner effectively above the law as the NKVD (KGB) could? Religous oppression sanctioned by the state, and often harsh, has been a feature of every Communist country to the best of my knowledge. (It isn't just Stalin and Mao, or a bunch of "psychopaths".)
Hmm .... Looks to me like your over-active fantasy life is leaching out into your everyday life.
You aren't stupid, but you simply get some things wrong, and I may make some replies to other posts mainly for the benefit of others. I doubt there is much evidence that would persuade you that you've got something wrong to the point you would change your mind.
I defy you. Find us a mob of atheist which lynched somebody. Good luck on that. There is plenty current example of mob from *all* major religions lynching people. Heck ever remember the balkan genocide of muslim by christian ?
Challenge accepted.
League of Militant Atheists
In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."
That wasn't just power grabs, they genuinely were combating religious belief in accordance with their beliefs and ideology. They were willing to shed blood to stamp out religion.
It turns out that atheists are ordinary people, subject to the same flaws as anyone else.
Oppression of religious believers occurred in every communist country to the best of my knowledge. You can't explain it away by saying it was just Lenin, or Stalin. It happened under the leaders that followed them, and in other countries. It is a matter of ideology.
To the best of my knowledge religious persecution has occured in every communist country, countries that are atheist. It isn't a question of psychopaths, but of ideology.
League of Militant Atheists
In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."
You can't explain it away by saying it was just Stalin because it happened under the leaders that followed him, and in other countries.
Seems fair, I doubt you would be.
There is no atheistic fanatisms. There are only fanatics that happen to be atheists or claim so or kill priests, whatever.
That isn't true.
League of Militant Atheists
In addition, the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."
Atheist are prone to the same faults as anyone else. There are those among them that hate religion, and if given the opportunity would act on that hatred.
The Crusades were a long delayed defensive reaction by Christian nations to the invasion and conquest by invading Muslim armies. Their intent was to restore the Holy Lands to Christian control.
Crusades
The first of the Crusades began in 1095, when armies of Christians from Western Europe responded to Pope Urban II’s plea to go to war against Muslim forces in the Holy Land. After the First Crusade achieved its goal with the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, the invading Christians set up several Latin Christian states, even as Muslims in the region vowed to wage holy war (jihad) to regain control over the region.
Up next, was the 1944 D-Day invasion about land expansions abroad and power grabs at home?
-1 ..... another victory for free speech and open debate. The terrorists are winning.
Why would any sane terrorist use any sort of service run by someone else? That just makes them vulnerable. Any sort of PC, install Linux and set up their own private XMPP server, instant fully-encrypted communications without leaving any logs or other traces on anyone else's systems where the authorities could get access to them....
Will you be happy if they follow your advice and become untraceable?
No, he is attempting to provide political impetus to be able to make laws banning the use of end to end encrypted chat sessions, so that he can spy on everyone.
That is an interesting theory. Do you have any idea why they would want to do that?
Either this information is false, or the Belgian minister is an idiot. If we can track them on a single platform, it would be dumb to let them know, because they will move somewhere else. It would also be dumb to tell them that it is hard for authorities to monitor if that was actually true.
Wow, a +5. I'm impressed. I've been mod-bombed for years for pointing out the exact same thing. I guess things are different when the shoe is on the other foot.
I like how the Belgian minister is "an idiot" for releasing that information, but good 'ol Edward Snowden is a sainted genius for doing the EXACT SAME THING, only FAR, FAR more and worse.
Either way the horse is long gone from the barn, and the terrorists will be benefiting from the leaks (Belgium: 1, Snowden: 1.7M) for years to come, not to mention China, Russia, and (soon to be nuclear armed with missiles to match) Iran.
Unfortunately there are probably more attacks to come that won't be stopped, and we know the reasons for some of that, don't we?
Praying for Paris, the people of Paris, does nothing to undermine the secular state and it is confused thinking to believe so. The Parisian that made that reply was equally confused - prayer doesn't introduce more religion in places where it isn't. But there is an interesting question to ask that Parisian - assume God exists ... does the Parisian turn away God's mercy? What good would come of that?
Was there something different about the terrorists? AKs maybe?
BTW - Not everyone in the US "packs heat." Generally only a minor percentage of people that go to the trouble taking classes, spending a little range time, and having a background investigation to meet the requirements for licensing. Licensed concealed carry holders have a pretty good track record overall, and have stopped many crimes, including what were apparently going to be mass shootings. But I've probably told you things you already know, and more that you want to hear.
Errr, no. And as someone who has studied Pol Pot a bit (due to family connections with some of his victims) it's clear that his atheism was not a significant motivating force in his rampage. And it's clear that neither Stalin nor Mao did anything due to their lack of belief, ...
The regimes of all three specifically targeted religious believers and institutions for heavy repression, including confiscation of property and death.
while o the other hand Hitler embraced the Catholic church and they embraced him back. Does "Gott Mitt Un" ring a bell?
The use of "Gott Mitt Un" predated Hitler's regime in German armies by hundreds of years. Hitler didn't "embrace" the Catholic church in any meaningful way, nor did the Catholic church embrace him back. The Nazis were bitter opponents of genuine Christian belief even while they worked to subvert the church for their own purposes. The christian churches were a source of considerable social resistance to the regime.
It's hard to murder millions of people just because you don't believe in something.
Atheists believe there is no god, some are extremists, and many of them hold religious belief in contempt. In the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot that often meant persecution and death.
Hard to do anything "because you don't believe in something"? League of Militant Atheists
For example, there are lots of people who don't believe in leprechauns, why aren't they out there committing atrocities? Why don't we label the "aleprechanists" and worry day and night about what they might do? Because it would be silly, that's why.
It would be silly because there belief in leprechauns does not constitute a mobilizing force in society and is at most a rare and quaint folk belief.
Your average atheist isn't going to be motivated to kill people in the name of his/her magical sky-daddy or the promise of an afterlife. Most of us atheists realize that we only get one life to live, and so we try to make the most of it here and now.
Individually that may be largely true. But in large numbers with support from the regime all bets are off.
Show me an example or two of atheists who've committed atrocities in the name of atheism (if you can), and I'll show you a hundred that have done it in the name of religion.
Seriously, show me some examples of people who have said "I'm killing people specifically because I don't believe in god!". Statistically there are probably some, but I can't think of any offhand.
League of Militant Atheists
... the League of Militant Atheists sometimes took a violent approach to those who would not accept the League's message. For example, "bishops, priests, and lay believers" were "arrested, shot, and sent to labour camps."[25]
The officially atheist communists killed 100,000,000 people in the last century. Religious persecution was only a portion of that, but it was there.
There are many fine people that are atheists, but atheism isn't a mark of good character, intelligence, or a guarantee of good conduct.
Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were all atheists. Suck on it.
The difference is that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao didn't do the things they did because they were atheists, whereas religious fanatics do horrific things precisely because they're religious fanatics. Sorry to burst your simple little thought-bubble.
You don't have that right. Harsh religious persecution was a common feature to the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. That religious persecution happened as a result of their being atheists. There is no shortage of both extremism and contempt for people holding religious belief among atheists. In those regimes (and many others like them) it resulted in terrible oppression and murder .... by atheists.
Sorry to burst your simple little thought-bubble.
Please educate yourself before you try to claim it isn't.
I would not really draw attention to the Soviet-Afghan war when trying to argue for how good the US is for world peace and the stability of the region,
You weren't arguing that the US was good, you were arguing that it was bad, and you're doing it again while ignoring the primary mover that was the Soviet Union. Repeating an error doesn't make it smaller.
considering what the US did during that time. I know, hindsight is always 20/20, but, really, nobody thought that it just MIGHT backfire?
It did help bring down the Soviet Union, and I doubt the Soviets had that in mind when they invaded. Bin Laden and al Qaeda weren't a reaction to the US, and weren't backed by the US. They are splatter from the Soviet invasion and the existing strain of Islamic radicalism that had been growing for some time.
Atheism is certainly a religious belief, and a great many of them do believe in magic otherwise they wouldn't keep trying to build communist "workers paradises" on earth (which is only one manifestation).
OK, reality check: France is pounding ISIS in Syria right now. Yes, they (we) also pounded Lybia. Terrorists consider France an ally of the USA (which it is).
These guys are simply using terrorism everywhere, because that's the only thing they know how to do.
Sorry, but that is bullshit. France has only been bombing Syria for six weeks and these attacks were almost certainly being planned long before that. Al Qaida had plots for attacks like this broken up in Europe five years ago:
'Mumbai-style' terror attack on UK, France and Germany foiled - Tuesday 28 September 2010
CIA foils Mumbai-style terror plot on Europe with series of drone strikes on militants in Pakistan - 29 September 2010
It takes months or years to plot and prepare for attacks like this. It takes two seconds to claim that it is because of "Syria."
The members of ISIS certainly know more than terrorism. They have put at risk the government of both Iraq and Syria, presenting a serious challenge to their armies in the field. They are using terrorism in France because that is what they can do . . .for now.
The Islamist extremists want France to convert to Islam, just like they want every other country to do.
If anything, US doing away some of the stabilizing factors in the area made the whole shit possible in the first place.
The Soviet Union. Afghanistan. Ring a bell? Soft-pedaling the excesses of the Soviets again?
You know what? I'm from a country that was sitting between the two power blocks back in the days of the cold war.
Where you're "from" seems to be a function of what is advantageous in any particular discussion.
Bring it on, whoever wants some can come and get some.
As I recall you don'[t live there any more, the Bundeswehr isn't what is used to be, and neither is the volk.
I wonder which way the Greens will go - deplore the attack? Declare solidarity with the Islamists and their anti-imperialism? Hard to say.